The De Alvarez point about the Prince being a kind of trap- that if you followed all its instructions you'd be dead- and that trap is a test of his readers, sifting out the fools, makes sense given the fool the Epistle Dedicatory is addressed to
Fine interview, and it's great to have it here! I read The Stakes pretty recently, and it really is must-read, the best summary of the populist-conservative position, when articulated mainly in policy and strategic terms (but not exclusively in those terms--some fine West Coast pol philosophy teaching takes place--), that is presently available.
As far as Machiavelli goes, while admitting that the study of his works is necessary for the student of political philosophy, and that the wisest takes of Anton, C. Zuckert, Mansfield, Meier, Alvarez, and Strauss might bring out the more salutary aspects, I stick to my conviction that conservatism, and genuine political philosophy also, have far more to lose than to gain from helping to make him a figure of fascination. "To lose" here may be alternately read as "damage to do," and "to gain" as "healing to bring." This interview does make me slightly more open to the "sacrificed his reputation in order to pass on (what he thought was) his wisdom" hypothesis, but I still resist it, and even if I accepted it, major questions and objections would remain, and most frontally, several about rightly assessing the risks involved in passing on one's teaching in such a way.
The De Alvarez point about the Prince being a kind of trap- that if you followed all its instructions you'd be dead- and that trap is a test of his readers, sifting out the fools, makes sense given the fool the Epistle Dedicatory is addressed to
Fine interview, and it's great to have it here! I read The Stakes pretty recently, and it really is must-read, the best summary of the populist-conservative position, when articulated mainly in policy and strategic terms (but not exclusively in those terms--some fine West Coast pol philosophy teaching takes place--), that is presently available.
As far as Machiavelli goes, while admitting that the study of his works is necessary for the student of political philosophy, and that the wisest takes of Anton, C. Zuckert, Mansfield, Meier, Alvarez, and Strauss might bring out the more salutary aspects, I stick to my conviction that conservatism, and genuine political philosophy also, have far more to lose than to gain from helping to make him a figure of fascination. "To lose" here may be alternately read as "damage to do," and "to gain" as "healing to bring." This interview does make me slightly more open to the "sacrificed his reputation in order to pass on (what he thought was) his wisdom" hypothesis, but I still resist it, and even if I accepted it, major questions and objections would remain, and most frontally, several about rightly assessing the risks involved in passing on one's teaching in such a way.